5 ms·

It would be more accurate to say, he's ok with reclassifying internet services as Title I, given that 1) ISPs have almost never tried to throttle by traffic typ

It would be more accurate to say, he's ok with reclassifying internet services as Title I, given that 1) ISPs have almost never tried to throttle by traffic type, 2) business model innovation (e.g. zero rating, etc) can have positive effects, and 3) internet access has lots of room for improvement that will require investment, and tying the hands of the providers may prevent that. (I don't necessarily agree with all those points, but Stratechery has been about the only useful counterpoint recently.)

ouid 9y ago
Do you actually believe that these points are useful? You're distancing yourself from "agreeing" with them, maybe because you know how wrong they are, but you still seem to be sympathetic to them. >1) ISPs have almost never tried to throttle by traffic type They have been shown to do this, have an interest in doing it, and it's illegal to do it. Say you're playing chess, and you consider making a move such that, if they move their rook to h7 it would be mate for you. Is it a reasonable argument in favor of making the move anyway to point out that your opponent "almost never" moves his rook to h7? >2) business model innovation (e.g. zero rating, etc) can have positive effects This is difficult to disprove since the statement is incredibly weak. "Can have"??! ISPs have local monopolies everywhere they exist. Business model innovation for monopolies is exclusively going to be about charging people more money for the same service, and protecting your monopoly status. You could argue that this is a positive effect, but not to me, and probably not to this board. >3) internet access has lots of room for improvement that will require investment, and tying the hands of the providers may prevent that. They have no incentive to improve it as long as they maintain their monopoly status. People are already being charged as much money as they are willing to pay for their internet access, you can't improve the service and expect to extract more money from them. In short, none of these points have any merit at all, and if you present them in the future, you should also explain why they don't make any sense.
- collinmanderson 9y ago
  I think some of these points have merit. 1) It was only illegal from 2015-2017, right? 2) I have multiple ISP options in my neighborhood in a small city. ISPs don’t have a monopoly everywhere. 3) If the ISPs abuse their power, the FCC can always switch them back to Title II.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > 1) It was only illegal from 2015-2017, right? It was prohibited by regulation from 2010-2014 and 2015-2017 and contrary to non-regulation FCC policy enforced through case-by-case action from 2005-2010. > 3) If the ISPs abuse their power, the FCC can always switch them back to Title II. The ISPs did so repeatedly throughout the case-by-case enforcement period, which is why the FCC adopted the first regulatory package in 2010 (while this was finalized after case-by-case was struck down by the courts, the process was started earlier.)
  - syshum 9y ago
    1) no. From Inception of the Internet until 2005 they were regulated under Title II, from 2005 until 2010 there were loose rules on a case by case basis, from 2010 to 2015 there was the Original Open Internet Order as a direct result of Comcast Bad Actions, which were struck down by the Courts so in 2015 the ISP;s were moved back to Title II in order for the Open Internet Order to be Enforceable 2) Good for you, Are those options all wireless... Wireless is not a replacement for wired service. Further How about you think of Americans other than your self. As of 2015 under the current definition of broadband (25mpbs or higher) there are no ISPs at all in 30 percent of developed census blocks options for Fixed Broadband, 48% had 1 Option, only 3% had 3 or more choices... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... 3) There is not IF, ISP have abused their power, and will do so again https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... And that is only a Small part of the NN Violations, many of which are suspected but can not be proven
    - collinmanderson 9y ago
      1) Thanks for the clarification. 2) Cable and DSL are the two I'm thinking of. (Though AT&T has just rolled out fiber-to-the-home, Comcast probably will too soon.) I'm currently paying Comcast $20/mo (intro-rate) for 16mbs. It's not broadband, but it's plenty for streaming Netflix, etc. I don't need broadband. 3) I'm also hoping that any abuses will encourage competition of ISPs.
simplify 9y ago
Verizon has openly said they would discriminate by traffic type. > In response to Judge Laurence Silberman’s line of questioning about whether Verizon should be able to block any website or service that doesn’t pay the company’s proposed tolls, Walker said: “I think we should be able to; in the world I'm positing, you would be able to.” https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-plan-break-internet https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-pla...

ouid 9y ago

Do you actually believe that these points are useful? You're distancing yourself from "agreeing" with them, maybe because you know how wrong they are, but you still seem to be sympathetic to them. >1) ISPs have almost never tried to throttle by traffic type They have been shown to do this, have an interest in doing it, and it's illegal to do it. Say you're playing chess, and you consider making a move such that, if they move their rook to h7 it would be mate for you. Is it a reasonable argument in favor of making the move anyway to point out that your opponent "almost never" moves his rook to h7? >2) business model innovation (e.g. zero rating, etc) can have positive effects This is difficult to disprove since the statement is incredibly weak. "Can have"??! ISPs have local monopolies everywhere they exist. Business model innovation for monopolies is exclusively going to be about charging people more money for the same service, and protecting your monopoly status. You could argue that this is a positive effect, but not to me, and probably not to this board. >3) internet access has lots of room for improvement that will require investment, and tying the hands of the providers may prevent that. They have no incentive to improve it as long as they maintain their monopoly status. People are already being charged as much money as they are willing to pay for their internet access, you can't improve the service and expect to extract more money from them. In short, none of these points have any merit at all, and if you present them in the future, you should also explain why they don't make any sense.

collinmanderson 9y ago
I think some of these points have merit. 1) It was only illegal from 2015-2017, right? 2) I have multiple ISP options in my neighborhood in a small city. ISPs don’t have a monopoly everywhere. 3) If the ISPs abuse their power, the FCC can always switch them back to Title II.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > 1) It was only illegal from 2015-2017, right? It was prohibited by regulation from 2010-2014 and 2015-2017 and contrary to non-regulation FCC policy enforced through case-by-case action from 2005-2010. > 3) If the ISPs abuse their power, the FCC can always switch them back to Title II. The ISPs did so repeatedly throughout the case-by-case enforcement period, which is why the FCC adopted the first regulatory package in 2010 (while this was finalized after case-by-case was struck down by the courts, the process was started earlier.)
- syshum 9y ago
  1) no. From Inception of the Internet until 2005 they were regulated under Title II, from 2005 until 2010 there were loose rules on a case by case basis, from 2010 to 2015 there was the Original Open Internet Order as a direct result of Comcast Bad Actions, which were struck down by the Courts so in 2015 the ISP;s were moved back to Title II in order for the Open Internet Order to be Enforceable 2) Good for you, Are those options all wireless... Wireless is not a replacement for wired service. Further How about you think of Americans other than your self. As of 2015 under the current definition of broadband (25mpbs or higher) there are no ISPs at all in 30 percent of developed census blocks options for Fixed Broadband, 48% had 1 Option, only 3% had 3 or more choices... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br... 3) There is not IF, ISP have abused their power, and will do so again https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... And that is only a Small part of the NN Violations, many of which are suspected but can not be proven
  - collinmanderson 9y ago
    1) Thanks for the clarification. 2) Cable and DSL are the two I'm thinking of. (Though AT&T has just rolled out fiber-to-the-home, Comcast probably will too soon.) I'm currently paying Comcast $20/mo (intro-rate) for 16mbs. It's not broadband, but it's plenty for streaming Netflix, etc. I don't need broadband. 3) I'm also hoping that any abuses will encourage competition of ISPs.

simplify 9y ago

Verizon has openly said they would discriminate by traffic type. > In response to Judge Laurence Silberman’s line of questioning about whether Verizon should be able to block any website or service that doesn’t pay the company’s proposed tolls, Walker said: “I think we should be able to; in the world I'm positing, you would be able to.” https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-plan-break-internet https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-pla...